[antics]

Thanks for the spirited reply, Zaid, but I never said I disagree with any of these points. I'm responding specifically to the ridiculous notion that profit could not possibly be in the future of a post-IPO Twitter, not this stuff about whether Twitter is actually in trouble. If you want to take issue with my position you should probably respond to something I actually said. It is less productive to pretend I am debating a different set of issues and then complain when I don't address these other issues.

(I also don't appreciate your assertion that I didn't read an article from which I cited specific factual statements. Obviously I did. This is all particularly annoying, since you seem to believe something that I think is mostly true, and not on something which I concretely disagree; it makes it seem like you're hunting for a disagreement and not conducting this conversation in good faith.)

[zaidf]

Timeline views were down nearly 7%, suggesting users were refreshing their feeds less often.

(1) Twitter makes most of its revenues from timeline views

(2) Timeline views are declining

(3) When a recently IPO'd company's biggest money making product is on the decline in terms of usage, that is hardly a rosy picture.

[antics]

Sure, it is certainly debatable that "rosy" was the right choice of words here (it probably was a bit bombastic). But unless your plan is to claim that it is impossible to be optimistic about this situation (which is more or less the position I have taken issue with), then I'm not interested in having this discussion.

I'm open to the possibility is wrong; I'm not open to the idea that this debate about the semantics of "rosy" is the most interesting thing to be said here.

Sorry if this is a bit blunt.